If you think Sabo was above-average and Lo Duca is below average, I want to know what standards you use.
He is amazing, I hope he continues to focus and hits the ball well...Evertime I look up, its another multi hit game... Now if we could only get Endsberg, Adam doing this, that would cool...
Please spell the guy's name correctly. It's Ensberg...no "d". It would have been funnier if you were mistakenly putting "o" in his name. Then we could make jokes about how he has no O in his name or his game...
Most likely, Scott will finish with a BA between .330 and .430 for this season. He will have to try very hard to not have a great half year.
Whis is saying what exactly? Using your measurement stick , I could guess the batting average for every single player in the MLB and that 6'8" 13 year old kid in the LLWS.
Even if he sucks it up for the rest of the year, he'll still have been an above average hitter based on what he has already done for this year. Also I believe Ichiro, Bonds, Larry Walker, and Cal Ripken, Jr are the only one to bat above .400 for half a season in the last ten years. I doubt he'll make .400 since the break, but he's got a better shot than any Astro I've ever seen at batting .400 for even half a season.
He's having a good start to his 3rd stint in the majors... but lets not get too over-zealous. Berkman is simply a tremendous pure hitter, who bats very well right handed, and hits to ALL fields. He's not necessarily a HR hitter... he's just hits the ball so well and so hard, that he happens to hit a lot out (kinda like Pujols... with a little less bravado). Scott is more of a pull hitter... with the occasional pop to CF (which doesn't translate well to MMP). He also still needs to see more big league breaking stuff to become a guy with less holes to get him out. Don't get me wrong... Scott can become a very good MLB hitter if he keeps on improving... but Berkman is a top 5 hitter in all of baseball.
Saw this link posted at Astros Baseball Talk and thought it was interesting. Luke Scott is like a lefty Jason Lane (basically). http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2006/8/23/174618/098 Jason Lane and Luke Scott Looking over the Astros stat sheet, there are two oddities that stand out. Jason Lane: 88 games, 242 at-bats, .207/.330/.397, 12 homers, 43 walks, 57 strikeouts. Luke Scott: 34 games, 115 at-bats, .400/.461/.635, 3 homers, 14 doubles, 13 walks, 19 strikeouts. Lane is one of the bigger disappointments in the game this year, while Scott's play over the last month is one of the bigger surprises. What does this say about each player? We'll look at Lane first since we have more major league data to work with. Lane is 29 years old. He entered 2006 with a career mark of .271/.327/.507 in 749 at-bats, including .267/.316/.499 last year in 145 games for the Astros. His career mark is now .255/.328/.480 in 991 at-bats. He's lost 16 points of career batting average this year, and 27 points of career slugging percentage. However, his career OBP has actually increased a point this season. His walk rate is much better than it was last year. . .he's drawn 43 walks compared to just 32 all last season, in far fewer plate appearances. His strikeout rate is up just a hair: he fanned in 19% of his plate appearances last year, compared to 20% this year. That is an insignificant difference. So what we have here is a guy who is drawing a lot more walks than last year, and isn't striking out at a significantly higher percentage. His power production is down somewhat: his isolated power last season was .232, this year it is .190. But still, he's shown pretty decent pop. His home run per at-bat ratio is almost identical to last year, the main difference in his power is fewer doubles and singles. His EQA is .251 this year, compared to .274 last year and .276 the year before. . .obviously less effective than in the past, but the drop is enough to be due to random chance. He is having a lot of trouble against right-handed pitchers (.200/.306/.350) but has been more effective against lefties (.231/.405/.523). Note the strong overall production against southpaws despite the low batting average. His BB/K/AB ratio against right-handers is 27/44/180, compared to 18/15/65 against lefties. . On paper, this looks like a combination of things: contact issues against right-handed pitchers, and simple bad luck. From looking at the stats and his overall track record, I think he would be a good candidate to rebound next year. I haven't seen Lane in person enough to give a diagnosis about his swing or other issues, and I'd be interested to hear what Astros fans have to say about it. Luke Scott, on the other hand, has been killing the ball. He was a big disappointment last year, but has been an even bigger surprise this year. Combine it, and he now has a career mark of .313/.382/.492 in 195 career at-bats. I do NOT think that Scott is a "real" .300 hitter, in the sense that he could maintain this over a full season. From watching him in the minors the last few years, he reminds me a lot actually of Jason Lane, albeit a mirror-image, lefty-hitting version. I think Scott is "coded" (if you will) as a .275/.340/.450 hitter, certainly useful. I think this is a run of good luck, counteracting to some extent the bad luck he had in limited action last year. Remember what Shane Spencer did for the Yankees in 1998? He hit .373/.411/.910 with 10 homers in a mere 67 at-bats. It was a well-timed hot streak that got him a major league job as a platoon player for the next several years. His career numbers ended up at .262/.326/.428. I think Scott will end up similar to Spencer, probably somewhat better. And I expect the same for Jason Lane as well. That's my read on the situation. Both Lane and Scott are solid hitters, capable of helping a major league team at the very least as platoon players. Lane has had bad luck this year, Scott good luck. But their balance of hitting skills are overall quite similar. Jason Lane Career Minor League Numbers Entering 2006: .295/.373/.521 .894 OPS Luke Scott Career Minor League Numbers Entering 2006: .276/.359/.533 .892 OPS
I disagree with that assesment. Luke Scott in the batters box is MILES better than Jason Lane. Far fewer holes in his swing, and the ball jumps off of Scott's bat far more often than Lanes. Last year Luke jumped frpm AA straight to the big leagues and struggled. Then the struggles continued for about a month when he was sent down to the minors (depressed, I imagine), but by the end of the year he was leading the minor leagues with 30 HRs and was batting .298. Luke Scott is blossoming, the injuries early in his career hampered him, but he is healthy now, and is capable of flat out killing the ball. In the batters box, he just looks like a Major league hitter, where Lane looks like a 4th outfielder.....some pop inside, but if you pitch him away, you are probably going to get him out. Luke will hit the ball to left field, and fits in PERFECTLY at Minute Maid park with the Crawford boxes just a flick of the wrist away. IMHO, it is mostly about confidence, and Scott has it, while Lane does not. DD
I disagree with only one thing about the Luke Scott/Jason Lane assessment, but that one thing blows the whole comparison apart. Jason Lane is a pure pull hitter. On the Astros, only Craig Biggio is more likely to hit a ball to left field. Luke Scott is a spray hitter. A lot of his doubles have been left of center, and most have been in the wide area that you can call CF. Spray hitters almost always do better than pure pull hitters if everything else is equal. (Checking, obviously my observations are right.) Luke's Spray Chart Lane's Spray Chart
Wow, if you can use stats to say anything other than Jason Lane is complete ass, it's hard to trust them at all. I don't really care if he walks a lot. Him and Ensberg can keep walking, all the way to another team (if anyone wants them).
i could not agree more. this notion that a guy in the meat of the order is having a great season by walking more often than others but never driving in runs is absolutely ridiculous to me.
Finally the triple crown will be won! And it shall be by done by Luke Scott! One thing's for sure. He's too good for the minors so we can't keep sending him back down to waste time. Only time will tell if he can be consistent in the big leagues. He's proved himself at least decent trade bait, IMO. Too bad we can't figure out what he's even worth. But that's if anyone other than us are paying any real attention to the guy.
